Natural attrition: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 1: Line 1:
{{a|hr|}}{{d|{{PAGENAME}}|ˈnæʧrəl əˈtrɪʃ(ə)n|n|}}
{{a|hr|}}{{d|{{PAGENAME}}|ˈnæʧrəl əˈtrɪʃ(ə)n|n|}}


The dismal [[human resources]] practice of neglecting to manage out poor employees, and instead waiting for [[lateral quitter|good ones leave by their own initiative]], and then not replacing them, as a means to managing [[headcount]].
The dismal [[human resources]] practice of neglecting to manage out poor employees, and instead waiting for [[lateral quitter|good ones leave by their own initiative]], and then not replacing them, as a means to [[RIF|managing headcount]].


For sensitive types who don’t like workplace conflict, a smashing idea. For shareholders, a terrible one, ensuring as it does the inevitable [[mediocrity drift|drift to mediocrity]] among the [[stewards of your capital]].
For sensitive types in HR who don’t like workplace conflict, or having do do unpleasant things, a smashing idea. For [[shareholder]]s, a terrible one, ensuring as it does the inevitable [[mediocrity drift|drift to mediocrity]] among the [[stewards of your capital]].


A sensible [[human resources]] department — and here we are bound to say we are unpersuaded such a thing exists — would pursue the opposite strategy, devoting time effort and, if need be, money, talking good employees ''out'' of leaving and, and funding any such expenditure by culling the poor ones.
A sensible [[human resources]] department — and here we are bound to say we are unpersuaded such a thing exists — would pursue the opposite strategy, devoting time effort and, if need be, money, talking good employees ''out'' of leaving and, and funding any such expenditure by culling the poor ones.